What is the significance of infant baptism?

[dms1972]

I thought that I had done that many times, I had what I thought was a prayer life. Yet I later I found myself entertaining all sorts of "philosophical" ideas till I ended up in total confusion, saying "God is dead", and much in sympathy with the world at times on various issues. So I don't know what happened and wonder now if my conversion was genuine. But its a long story and I am not clear on it all.

 

[ExTiff]

I thought that I had done that many times, I had what I thought was a prayer life. Yet I later I found myself entertaining all sorts of "philosophical" ideas till I ended up in total confusion, saying "God is dead", and much in sympathy with the world at times on various issues. So I don't know what happened and wonder now if my conversion was genuine. But its a long story and I am not clear on it all.

I think none of us ever are. Even Our Lord cried "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me", and I think that it is very hard to distinguish between the idea that he was quoting Psalm 22, in victory, or that Ps.22 was a prophetic prediction of his very real agonizing doubt at the end. We just hope that we also will share in a resurrection in which doubt is no longer a constant companion to faith. What we will never get this side of the grave however is certainty.

 

[Not David]

Could it be that you are Catholic and the information gleaned from "Gotquestions" are based solely on the written Word of God?

Just asking!

I'm not Catholic, and most of the Protestants baptize babies anyways.

 

[Billy Evmur]

some of the biggest sinners of all time were sprinkled as babies...Al Capone was sprinkled.

You either do what the bible says, in the way the bible says to do or it is worthless.

Water baptism signifies that we have been buried with Christ and raised up to newness of life...baptism is the testimony that those things have happened to us.

 

[Not David]

some of the biggest sinners of all time were sprinkled as babies...Al Capone was sprinkled.

You either do what the bible says, in the way the bible says to do or it is worthless.

Water baptism signifies that we have been buried with Christ and raised up to newness of life...baptism is the testimony that those things have happened to us.

I'm sure a lot of people who were baptized wgen they believed did horrible things too

 

[Billy Evmur]

I'm sure a lot of people who were baptized wgen they believed did horrible things too

Mebbe so...baptism does not equal salvation, the magician at Samaria was baptised but he was in the gall of bitterness for all that.

 

[ExTiff]

some of the biggest sinners of all time were sprinkled as babies...Al Capone was sprinkled.

You either do what the bible says, in the way the bible says to do or it is worthless.

Water baptism signifies that we have been buried with Christ and raised up to newness of life...baptism is the testimony that those things have happened to us.

The self same argument you use to dis infant baptism is applicable to adult baptism too. From Annanias and Saphira in the New Testament to some secret KKK murderers who were probably fully immersed in a Southern Baptist Church.

No form of Baptism guarantees salvation. Only a life of faith and a walk in the power of The Holy Spirit does that. OSAS is a damnable modernist heresy.

What infant baptism does is signify that the infants of believing parents are covered by the same covenant God has sworn with the parents, until such time as the child freely keeps Covenant with God on their own behalf.

The magician at Samaria? Did you mean Seleu'cia, or Sal'amis, Acts.13:4-12. I don't think there is any reason to believe that one was baptized. If you mean the one I think you mean in Acts.8, you are right, that one was baptized and at first it didn't do him much good, until he got right with God. I'm sure this applies to us all, daily.

 

[Calvary4me]

Both positions are outlined well in this thread. Examined closely, I find the scriptural support for infant baptism to be based on some leaps in logic, and based on tangential references (passages focusing on truths and not directed at when to be baptized). I suspect that there were some cultural pressure - such as capitulation to the Catholic church - that led to this tortured reasoning.

When baptizing is dealt with directly in scripture (the primary point being made), it consistently portrays a believer's baptism. Compare the specific references for yourselves.

 

[Tharseo]

I personally do not oppose infants baptism. After all, it is not just baptism that saves a person, but by faith and acts of faith in God. Adult baptism, however, is an act of faith, and is surely rewarded by God.

 

[Major1]

I personally do not oppose infants baptism. After all, it is not just baptism that saves a person, but by faith and acts of faith in God. Adult baptism, however, is an act of faith, and is surely rewarded by God.

Actually, water baptism has nothing to do with salvation at all.

It is only through the confession of the heart repeated by the mouth that we can through faith be saved.

Romans 10:9 is very clear.

 

[Tharseo]

Actually, water baptism has nothing to do with salvation at all.

I don't think so. Baptism is not unimportant in terms of salvation.

1 Peter 3:21: "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,"

 

[Major1]

I don't think so. Baptism is not unimportant in terms of salvation.

1 Peter 3:21: "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,"

That is perfectly OK to think what ever you want to. I am happy to try and explain this for you.

All I am saying is that Scripturally speaking, water baptism plays NO role in the salvation of the soul.

As with any single verse or passage, we discern what it teaches by first filtering it through what we know the Bible teaches on the subject at hand. In the case of baptism and salvation, the Bible is clear that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not by works of any kind, including baptism. So, any interpretation which comes to the conclusion that baptism, or any other act, is necessary for salvation, is a faulty interpretation.

Those who believe that baptism is required for salvation are quick to use 1 Peter 3:21 as a “proof text,” because it states “baptism now saves you.” Was Peter really saying that the act of being baptized is what saves us? If he were, he would be contradicting many other passages of Scripture that clearly show people being saved (as evidenced by their receiving the Holy Spirit) prior to being baptized or without being baptized at all.

A good example of someone who was saved before being baptized is Cornelius and his household in Acts 10. We know that they were saved before being baptized because they had received the Holy Spirit, which is the evidence of salvation seen in Rom. 8:9. The evidence of their salvation was the reason Peter allowed them to be baptized.

Thankfully, though, we don’t have to guess at what Peter means in this verse because he clarifies that for us with the phrase “not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience.” While Peter is connecting baptism with salvation, it is not the act of being baptized that he is referring to (not the removal of dirt from the flesh). Being immersed in water does nothing but wash away dirt. What Peter is referring to is what baptism represents, which is what saves us (an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ).

 

[Tharseo]

That is perfectly OK to think what ever you want to. I am happy to try and explain this for you.

That is absolutely not OK to think whatever I want to. I am happy that you explained to me.

I did not mean, that baptism is required for salvation, instead I mean it is not unimportant.

Baptism comes from God. And God commands people who believe should be baptized. It is not a symbolic act, but an act of faith and an act of obeying God. So why would one person thinks he needs no baptism when God says so? Not accepting baptism, to me, is same as not obeying God.

After all, our Lord Jesus, the one who has no sin, the one who does not need to repent, and the one who has absolutely no need to be baptised, accepts the baptism of repentance from John. I don't see an excuse for anyone to claim that he/she does not need baptism.

In Acts 10, they still were baptised, weren't they? The Spirit is a sign from God that they will be accepted (a sign for Peter, since he was not sure about this), not meaning they are already saved. (IMO receiving the Holy Spirit does not mean you are saved. But this is another topic.) The baptism afterwards, are not optional.

The only time that I think baptism is not required, is that the situation does not allow it. Like the criminal hanged next to Jesus.

 

[ItIsFinished!]

Baby baptism = baby getting wet

 

[ExTiff]

Both positions are outlined well in this thread. Examined closely, I find the scriptural support for infant baptism to be based on some leaps in logic, and based on tangential references (passages focusing on truths and not directed at when to be baptized). I suspect that there were some cultural pressure - such as capitulation to the Catholic church - that led to this tortured reasoning.

When baptizing is dealt with directly in scripture (the primary point being made), it consistently portrays a believer's baptism. Compare the specific references for yourselves.

Your comments betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the premise upon which infants are baptized in the reformed tradition of the church. That is no surprise to me though, it is a commonly misunderstood area of Christian Covenant Theology.

I suspect that there were some cultural pressure - such as capitulation to the Catholic church - that led to this tortured reasoning.

The Roman Catholic Church has different reasons for baptizing infants than do the reformed churches and the Reformed churches by their very nature do not 'capitulate' to Catholic doctrine on the issue of baptism. You are therefore mistaken in your unwarranted assumption.

The reasoning behind baptism of infants of at least one believing parent in the Reformed tradition, is not difficult to understand if you have a comprehensive grasp of both Old Testament and New Testament scripture. It is nigh on incomprehensible however if you are conversant with and relying upon New Testament proof texts alone. Such a scant understanding of the whole of scripture however does not lead to sound theology. Christ encouraged us to study the whole of scripture, not just that which was written after his death. That is why we have a whole Bible of 66 books.

 

[ExTiff]

Baby baptism = baby getting wet

Adult baptism = Adult getting wet. (+ someone else in the pool with them getting wet too).

ItIsOnlyJustStarted at the point of baptism.

 

[ItIsFinished!]

Adult baptism = Adult getting wet. (+ someone else in the pool with them getting wet too).

ItIsOnlyJustStarted at the point of baptism.

Only accurate if the adult has not received salvation.

 

[ExTiff]

Only accurate if the adult has not received salvation.

Still only just started, unless you will die the same day like the thief on the cross.

 

[ItIsFinished!]

Still only just started, unless you will die the same day like the thief on the cross.

You misunderstand baptism.

 

[ExTiff]

You misunderstand baptism.

And you do? Supposedly! That could be certainty or just arrogance.